Jim Loomis

Experiences, Observations, Opinions

Style or Substance

I am an addict. I find that I am addicted to the presidential campaign. Rather, I’m not so much addicted to the campaign itself, as I am to the style of the candidates. I get a rush each day when I read the latest tantalizing things that the candidates have said and done the day before. I enjoy watching them on social media, even though I know that I am seeing only biased footage based on which news network I am watching. And I tend to watch those networks that deliver the most sensational material. I’m addicted.

Style verses substance. Or, shall we say: style verses significance. Significance: the importance of something, and the value that an individual places on that something.

But style also contains substance. How a person presents himself or herself tells us something about the things that the person says are important (whether they believe it or not). For example, polls show that Secretary Clinton’s style and ideas appeal to a certain demographic group, those more likely to have a college education, good jobs, and prospects for a bright future in a global economy. But some find her style to be elitist, and her rhetoric to represent the faults of a government insider who does not understand the needs of ordinary Americans.

Polls tell us that Mr. Trump’s style and rhetoric gives voice to a different demographic group, those more likely to feel disenfranchised, with dead-end jobs or no jobs, and those struggling to keep their heads above water. But some find his style to be egotistic, bombastic, and insulting.

My problem is that I am addicted to the sensationalism of the style, and often fail to evaluate the significance of the matter that the person is giving voice to.

Many agree with Secretary Clinton’s belief that we must reduce our use of fossil fuels and increase our use of wind and solar energy. They would argue that global warming is a very real and present danger to our planet and our survival as a species, even more so than random acts of terrorism. They would agree with Mrs. Clinton’s proposals to train people in ways that will increase our use of wind and solar power.

Many of those who support Mr. Trump might agree with this belief. But their agreement does little to help the coal miner whose job was abolished, who is unable to put food on the table for his family. Being retrained for a job of the future may sound good in theory, but it doesn’t pay the mortgage today. Mr. Trump’s style and beliefs tend to appeal to those who feel powerless in this rapidly changing world, and who would like nothing better than to be the picked-on kid in the school yard who finally has the ability to turn and punch the bully in the nose. Mr. Trump identifies specifically who the bully is, and he is ready to punch him in the nose for us. His bully is not some nebulous set of global interactions that are hard to identify and hard to control, a bully that we must learn to work with.

Style and substance: not distinctly different things. But it’s often hard to see the one in the other. I need to work harder on breaking my addiction in order to do so, because IT IS IMPORTANT to see the significance of both sides of this coin.


Single Post Navigation

2 thoughts on “Style or Substance

  1. Style, Substance, or Significance – nice 3 point message 🙂 Actually, none of these matter if there is little or no earned trust for a candidate for President of this Country. And that, for me, is where the real problem in this coming election surfaces. Mr. Trump, as Secretary of State Clinton so accurately put it during the first debate, must have something to hide by not releasing his latest tax returns, something that leaves me quite distrustful of him as a candidate. And, Hillary Clinton – as Mr. Trump implied in his remarks – must have something to hide as well because she refuses to release some 30,000 plus emails, something that also leaves me quite distrustful of her as a candidate. Unless both of them step up and do what is necessary to earn my trust, I will for the first time in my life find myself in the position of not being able to vote for either candidate for the highest office in our land, something that generates feelings of great sadness in me.


  2. I have been a systems administrator for many years, and have often been asked to fulfill FOIA requests or subpoenas for emails. Those emails that are of a personal nature and are in no way related to the subpoena or FOIA request are NEVER delivered to the requester. Saying that there are only 30,000 such emails over the course of her term in the State Department that must have had hundreds of thousands tells me that they did not mess around much with personal messages when compared to people in the private and local governmental sectors. I would consider that to be a positive for the management of the State Department and for Ms. Clinton.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: